Google's decision to remove H.264 support from its Chrome browser is being …

Share this story

The promise of HTML5's <video> tag was a simple one: to allow web pages to contain embedded video without the need for plugins. With the decision to remove support for the widespread H.264 codec from future versions of Chrome, Google has undermined this widely-anticipated feature. The company is claiming that it wants to support "open codecs" instead, and so from now on will support only two formats: its own WebM codec, and Theora.

Google's justification doesn't really add up, and there's a strong chance that the decision will serve only to undermine the use of the <video> tag completely. This is not a move promoting the open web. If anything, it is quite the reverse.

The <video> tag in HTML5 has been contentious since its inception due to question of codecs. Should the HTML5 specification mandate support for specific codecs, and if so, which should be required? Originally, the specification chose a particular compression algorithm for the <video> tag: the Theora algorithm. This decision was opposed by many parties involved in web standards for a range of reasons; as a result, the language of the specification was changed, so that it avoided specifying any particular algorithm. While this didn't make everyone involved particularly happy, it allowed work on the specification to proceed without endless arguments about video codecs. Though some opposed the decision, in truth it was hardly unprecedented: the HTML specification for the preexisting <img> tag for embedding still images does not mandate any particular format, either.

This meant that it was up to different browser vendors to pick their own preferred codecs. Apple and Microsoft (for the as-yet unreleased Internet Explorer 9) picked H.264 and H.264 alone. Firefox picked Theora and, in Firefox 4, WebM. Until this latest announcement, Chrome supported Theora, WebM, and H.264; in the future, it will support only Theora and WebM, just like Firefox. The reason Google has given for this change is that WebM (which pairs VP8 video with Vorbis audio) and Theora are "open codecs" and H.264 apparently isn't.

Openness can't be the issue

This explanation is lacking, to say the least. It appears to be a conflation of several issues: openness, royalty-freedom, and source code availability, among others. In the traditional sense, H.264 is an open standard. That is to say, it was a standard designed by a range of domain experts from across the industry, working to the remit of a standards organization. In fact, two standards organizations were involved: ISO and ITU. The specification was devised collaboratively, with its final ratification dependent on the agreement of the individuals, corporations, and national standards bodies that variously make up ISO and ITU. This makes H.264 an open standard in the same way as, for example, JPEG still images, or the C++ programming language, or the ISO 9660 filesystem used on CD-ROMs. H.264 is unambiguously open.

In contrast, neither WebM's VP8 nor Theora were assembled by a standards body such as ISO. VP8 was developed independently and entirely in secret by the company On2, prior to the company's purchase last year by Google. Theora was created by a group of open-source developers based on early work also done by On2. Though Theora's development can be described as an open, community process (albeit different in nature and style to the more formal processes and procedures used by the standards bodies), no such claim can be made of VP8. At the time of its development, VP8 was a commercial product, licensed by On2. Keeping the specifics of its codec secret was a deliberate goal of the company. Though it has since been published and to some extent documented, the major design work and decision-making was done behind closed doors, making it at its heart quite proprietary.

Google is now building a community around WebM (similar to that around Theora), but it hasn't taken any steps to submit WebM to ISO, ITU, or SMPTE for formal open standardization. The company is preferring to keep it under its own sole control.

For Google to claim that it is moving to "open codecs" is quite absurd: H.264 is very much an open codec. WebM is not.

It's about (cost) freedom

What H.264 isn't, however, is royalty-free. ISO and ITU do not require the members working on their various standards and specifications to give up any specific patent claims that may cover the technology that they define. As such, while H.264 is an open standard, there are several hundred different patents that cover the various techniques that it uses to achieve high quality compression—for example, estimating motion from frame to frame, removal of the block artifacts that result from the compression, and the final stage of lossless compression applied to the encoded video.

The result is that anyone wanting to distribute an implementation of H.264 must obtain licenses for all of the different patented techniques that they use, and these licenses typically come at some cost. To ease this burden, licenses for the full set of patents are available from the company MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA redistributes the income it makes from licenses to the various patent holders.

MPEG-LA's license terms for H.264 set out a range of fee schedules depending on the exact nature of the H.264 implementation. Importantly to web users, video that is distributed over the web and which is, importantly, not behind any kind of a paywall, is royalty-free. This means that uploading a video to a site such as YouTube and then rebroadcasting that video to all and sundry is free. For browser developers, the situation is not quite so happy: browsers include H.264 decoders, and these are subject to royalties. The size of the necessary payment depends on the number of units shipped—browsers with fewer than 100,000 users would likely not need to pay a royalty at all—but in any case is capped at $6.5 million (equivalent to about 65 million users), annually, until 2015.

Both VP8 and Theora are, however, royalty-free. Both were designed to avoid existing video patents. Theora was designed to use no patented techniques at all. VP8 does include patented techniques, but these techniques were developed and patented by On2. Google, as present owner of those patents, is permitting their use, in any application, without payment of any royalty.

At least to a point: the threat with both of those codecs is that they may, in fact, infringe on one or more patents, in spite of efforts to the contrary. If this turns out to be the case, one or both of the codecs might end up in a very similar position to H.264, as far as royalties are concerned.

In language, properly formed sentences following another in paragraph use the context set up by prior sentences.

And if I used the context from your last sentence your use of the phrase in an open direction would have been redundant hence, clear and separate lists of open source and open direction.

Open direction is not redundant. Saying "that" direction is potentially ambiguous, and you already have trouble enough reading context.

Quote:

tzt wrote:

For someone so nitpicky about READING, you sure do it poorly.

When you ask the reader to make an assumption (which your ambiguous text did) you make an ass out of you and 'umption.

How about assuming that I'm not in the habit of saying things you can easily jump on to show off how smart you are given that I haven't up to now?

Quote:

I haven't called for all IP laws to be repealed. I simply ask for evidence that IP attached to something as infrastructural as this (or language) that actually affects the creators choices when selling their work, (should they wish) is or has improved innovation and development. Just a single example would be good.

Given that's how reality already works, and it's working quite alright with the even more unwieldy regime of h.264+Flash, I think it's incumbent upon you to show why it doesn't work.

Quote:

Quote:

Modern SW IP can be quite akin to technical physical designwork which we've historically respected via the patent process.

See above and explain how eHarmony for example patenting the use of Multidimensional vector maths for any usage relating to human attraction is similar to a physical design?

Then that might not be a patent that should've been granted? What's your point? That poor SW patents can exist?

I think it's pretty clear you're not going to score cheap points off of me here, so in the interest of time (mostly mine), you should either put some more thought into these or whatever it is you do, because whatever the hell you think you're doing isn't working.

It is unlikely that the sort of person who frames the discussion as google (who have given up IP rights on webM/VP8) versus MpegLA is going to accept any clear evidence to the contrary of their position. This includes the FACT that whilst we have IP/Copyright we have not accepted such in the area of language, maths or facts for good reason. Such things actually hinder progress in a capitalist system.

I guess to you, the fact that similar IP/licensed technology for hypermedia text systems were never adopted or successful is not relevant to other presentation types such as images and video. Or that the actual protocols and network systems didn't work when designed and licensed by the few.

I think many free thinking individuals reading your posts on this thread (regardless of political opinion) will see that it is not about Good versus Evil, Apple Versus Google, Capitalism versus Communism or any other nonsense, we are discussing what can work best for the majority and the individual, and in this area they will see no evidence to support your claims!

I've discussed this already. Firefox or whatever on platforms/OS that license it will work fine, which is just about everything except the few who use desktop linux.

h.264 <video> won't "work fine" if Firefox doesn't support it. Firefox won't support it. No matter how much you disagree with that decision, it's there, and web developers must deal with it. p.s. - web developers are the ones who make websites like this fine website that we're arguing on now.

Google is just another giant corp vying for control in the struggle between themselves, and you seem to be a willing pawn.

I'm a willing pawn in... corporations vying for control? That's as much as I could get from your sentence. I don't know what it means, but I assume it's an insult. Damn you, tzt! (TBH, you seem well-informed on the technical aspects of h.264 and WebM, so I really was sorry to dogpile on you. You've got your hands full arguing with others on that front.)

I wrote about this in a reply to bedward a few pages back, basically about what's google's angle/play in this.

In general corps don't like anything that's outside their control. MS also tried their splinter codec a while back (also tried to make it "free"), and even they gave up on it to go with one spec for the benefit of everyone. But now google wants to give it their shot, years later but with a shining image that bedazzles some.

It is unlikely that the sort of person who frames the discussion as google (who have given up IP rights on webM/VP8) versus MpegLA is going to accept any clear evidence to the contrary of their position.

Duly noted that you ignoredthe practical concerns I've explicitly replied to you with (in addition to repeating several times to others).

+Dodge.

Quote:

This includes the FACT that whilst we have IP/Copyright we have not accepted such in the area of language, maths or facts for good reason. Such things actually hinder progress in a capitalist system.

+Strawman.

Quote:

I guess to you, the fact that similar IP/licensed technology for hypermedia text systems were never adopted or successful is not relevant to other presentation types such as images and video. Or that the actual protocols and network systems didn't work when designed and licensed by the few.

+Purposeful Misread.

Quote:

I think many free thinking individuals reading your posts on this thread (regardless of political opinion) will see that it is not about Good versus Evil, Apple Versus Google, Capitalism versus Communism or any other nonsense, we are discussing what can work best for the majority and the individual, and in this area they will see no evidence to support your claims!

Oh, it's about Good vs. Evil all right, you've made that quite clear with the rhetoric whilst dodging the practical stuff.

WTF are you talking about? Encoding a video is not "creation". It's just using some tool you might have to pay for in certain circumstances, not unlike any other tool you might use in life.

This discussion is hella tedious given your fanciful ideas about how tech works.

Duh, writing a poem is the creation, encoding in English is the language. If to sell or distribute the poem in English the creator had to pay a license fee this would not be progress on the system we already have. Free languages that are not "owned" or "proprietary" and thus place no restrictions on creators!

I guess to you, the fact that similar IP/licensed technology for hypermedia text systems were never adopted or successful is not relevant to other presentation types such as images and video. Or that the actual protocols and network systems didn't work when designed and licensed by the few.

tzt wrote:

+Purposeful Misread.

I'll come to the other parts later, rather than above do explain what you mean...

WTF are you talking about? Encoding a video is not "creation". It's just using some tool you might have to pay for in certain circumstances, not unlike any other tool you might use in life.

This discussion is hella tedious given your fanciful ideas about how tech works.

Duh, writing a poem is the creation, encoding in English is the language. If to sell or distribute the poem in English the creator had to pay a license fee this would not be progress on the system we already have. Free languages that are not "owned" or "proprietary" and thus place no restrictions on creators!

Sorry the topic here is h.264/vp8, not fanciful English analogies. I have no idea why you would go to that length to draw up similarity between words and random encoded bitstreams. The latter is far more similar to my matter is atoms example anyway.

Quote:

explain what you mean...

h.264 specifically already works. It was apparently working so well Google used it for all of youtube and their own browser before dropping it to go on some disingenuous moral crusade.

This includes the FACT that whilst we have IP/Copyright we have not accepted such in the area of language, maths or facts for good reason. Such things actually hinder progress in a capitalist system.

+Strawman.

If you suggest a stawman, please explain how you see encoding thoughts, ideas and self expression in video, differs from encoding the same in a language? Otherwise the analogy is sound and the points outlined (which I ask: do you concede these regarding language, maths and facts) are relevant to this situation and are not a misrepresentation.

This includes the FACT that whilst we have IP/Copyright we have not accepted such in the area of language, maths or facts for good reason. Such things actually hinder progress in a capitalist system.

+Strawman.

If you suggest a stawman, please explain how you see encoding thoughts, ideas and self expression in video, differs from encoding the same in a language? Otherwise the analogy is sound and the points outlined (which I ask: do you concede these regarding language, maths and facts) are relevant to this situation and are not a misrepresentation.

Again, the encode is nothing but the result of a compression tool. Some tools might have tiny marginal costs for various fees, just like anything else in life.

In any case, analogizing a potential (and tiny) fee to fundamental rights is completely retarded. People do this for the first amendment, too.

h.264 specifically already works. It was apparently working so well Google used it for all of youtube and their own browser before dropping it to go on some disingenuous moral crusade.

OK if this is your retort to licensed hypermedia systems, I believe they already worked before the web and were indeed more widely used when TimBL wrote his spec...

If you're going to concede for h264, since you know it's what we're talking about, then just do it. Nobody gives a shit about some unrelated existential argument about every other spec that might ever exist.

BTW, you're still not thinking any better despite the increased effort. At some point, it's probably better to just give up making ridiculously stretched arguments.

That extension will never enjoy the wide support that Flash does because website owners will not be willing to pay to develop a website that requires users to download a browser extension. Flash earned that position by providing things websites couldn't offer otherwise. Meanwhile, if I told a prospective client that (a) 25% of our users will be prompted to download a browser extension to watch videos, or (b) 100% of our users can watch videos immediately, it would be a no-brainer. The <video> element, in its current state, does not offer me anything other than in-page videos for iPad users.

tzt wrote:

I wrote about this in a reply to bedward a few pages back, basically about what's google's angle/play in this.

In general corps don't like anything that's outside their control. MS also tried their splinter codec a while back (also tried to make it "free"), and even they gave up on it to go with one spec for the benefit of everyone. But now google wants to give it their shot, years later but with a shining image that bedazzles some.

I don't care about Google's image. Google's image, good or bad, doesn't affect me in the least. We're talking about web browser support for h.264 encoding in HTML5's <video> element. Chrome supporting it or not has no effect on whether it would be widely adopted, because only iPads benefited from it in the first place. Yes, only iPads (as opposed to other iOS devices). I realize you have some theory about Google's master plan but you don't explain it very well. If you're going to accuse a corporation of being an evil entity with a scheme, at least say what that scheme is.

If you read that link, especially the section on W3, it shows you're wrong. Also see IETF (ie internet) and ITU. So either you posted that hoping nobody would click on it, or you don't read so well.

Really? How does it show he's wrong? Exact quote, please!

If I remember correctly, it's pretty explicitly stated in the top section, and you can click the link to the relevant sections yourself. Sorry I can't really bother for someone who's either really lazy or borderline literate (I don't really care).

I read the parts that referred to the W3C. I couldn't see anything like that. And in fact, their policy is that open standards need to be royalty-free. So why would they suddenly change their minds?

h264 embedded in flash which is ironically all youtube vids, etc don't have to be reencoded. Existing workflows with it don't need to be changed.

Actually, h264 videos on YouTube are being re-encoded. It's being re-encoded for different resolutions! And even the highest resolution download is a reencoded version of the one you updated, even if it was h264. So re-encoding is already happening. They just switch to encoding to a different format.

h.264 specifically already works. It was apparently working so well Google used it for all of youtube and their own browser before dropping it to go on some disingenuous moral crusade.

OK if this is your retort to licensed hypermedia systems, I believe they already worked before the web and were indeed more widely used when TimBL wrote his spec...

If you're going to concede for h264, since you know it's what we're talking about, then just do it. Nobody gives a shit about some unrelated existential argument about every other spec that might ever exist.

BTW, you're still not thinking any better despite the increased effort. At some point, it's probably better to just give up making ridiculously stretched arguments.

So relating a media on the web like still images, video or sound to the primary media hypertext is an existential argument?

That extension will never enjoy the wide support that Flash does because website owners will not be willing to pay to develop a website that requires users to download a browser extension. Flash earned that position by providing things websites couldn't offer otherwise. Meanwhile, if I told a prospective client that (a) 25% of our users will be prompted to download a browser extension to watch videos, or (b) 100% of our users can watch videos immediately, it would be a no-brainer. The <video> element, in its current state, does not offer me anything other than in-page videos for iPad users.

It can just be installed by default anyway.

Quote:

tzt wrote:

I wrote about this in a reply to bedward a few pages back, basically about what's google's angle/play in this.

In general corps don't like anything that's outside their control. MS also tried their splinter codec a while back (also tried to make it "free"), and even they gave up on it to go with one spec for the benefit of everyone. But now google wants to give it their shot, years later but with a shining image that bedazzles some.

I don't care about Google's image. Google's image, good or bad, doesn't affect me in the least. We're talking about web browser support for h.264 encoding in HTML5's <video> element. Chrome supporting it or not has no effect on whether it would be widely adopted, because only iPads benefited from it in the first place. Yes, only iPads (as opposed to other iOS devices). I realize you have some theory about Google's master plan but you don't explain it very well. If you're going to accuse a corporation of being an evil entity with a scheme, at least say what that scheme is.

How can supporting WebM and Theora be a step back for the open web? This seems counter intuitive. Google have made clear from the start that buy buying WebM they would be able to make it open source and freely available to everybody. Which is what they are in the process of doing. Similarly Theora offers the same level of openness. Anybody and everybody has access to it.

A key important feature of the "open web" is the ability to freely use the web. The ability to choose free of overbearing constraints. To claim H.264 is open because a standards organisation like ISO was involved in it's conception is just wrong. A "standard" can't be truly open unless it's free to use. There is simply no point in knowing how to boil a kettle if you can't afford the licence fee. No licence. No product. No community interaction. No community cohesion. No "open web".

The companies that have chosen H.264 are traditionally in favour of DRM. They seek to control how people use technology. How they consume content and the nature of the content it's self. They are indeed in noway in favour of openness. It's no coincidence that Apple and Microsoft have teamed up to buy Novell's patent portfolio. They are both competing with Google in the smart phone and tablet arenas.

As for standards organisations being a measure of openness. ISO in recent history has been infiltrated by Microsoft as was demonstrated in the OOXML debacle. Clearly a lot of decisions are made behind closed doors in these organisations with funny handshakes and brown paper envelopes stuffed with kickbacks being passed under the table. The fact that H.264 was created with the assistance of ISO doesn't inspire me with confidence.

Microsoft in particular has a very bad history of being anti-open. Time and again Microsoft has added proprietary HTML tags to the HTML language. The situation Microsoft has created on the Web is so bad most companies are still locked into using IE because of the ActiveX controls they have come to depend on. Which are well known to be a security nightmare.

H.264 clearly has some legal issues surrounding it that are of concern to companies like Google and the Mozilla foundation. The web cannot be considered "open" if the flow of information is restricted by patents and large companies like Microsoft and Apple.

If you read that link, especially the section on W3, it shows you're wrong. Also see IETF (ie internet) and ITU. So either you posted that hoping nobody would click on it, or you don't read so well.

Really? How does it show he's wrong? Exact quote, please!

If I remember correctly, it's pretty explicitly stated in the top section, and you can click the link to the relevant sections yourself. Sorry I can't really bother for someone who's either really lazy or borderline literate (I don't really care).

I read the parts that referred to the W3C. I couldn't see anything like that. And in fact, their policy is that open standards need to be royalty-free. So why would they suddenly change their minds?

Please, exact quote. Or apologize and retract.

I don't remember the wiki page saying anything about no royalties in w3c, and frankly I can't really bother and I'm not sure why this manners so much to you esp. since HTML5 <video> was going for h.264.

h264 embedded in flash which is ironically all youtube vids, etc don't have to be reencoded. Existing workflows with it don't need to be changed.

Actually, h264 videos on YouTube are being re-encoded. It's being re-encoded for different resolutions! And even the highest resolution download is a reencoded version of the one you updated, even if it was h264. So re-encoding is already happening. They just switch to encoding to a different format.

It's encoded for different res in the same format. Opposing formats means either a duplication of effort or loss of compatibility. Pretty simple, and like the 5th time I've said this. God some people are slow.

h.264 specifically already works. It was apparently working so well Google used it for all of youtube and their own browser before dropping it to go on some disingenuous moral crusade.

OK if this is your retort to licensed hypermedia systems, I believe they already worked before the web and were indeed more widely used when TimBL wrote his spec...

If you're going to concede for h264, since you know it's what we're talking about, then just do it. Nobody gives a shit about some unrelated existential argument about every other spec that might ever exist.

BTW, you're still not thinking any better despite the increased effort. At some point, it's probably better to just give up making ridiculously stretched arguments.

So relating a media on the web like still images, video or sound to the primary media hypertext is an existential argument?

Your claims are essentially argument by innuendo, which is Glenn Beck stupid. If I wanted to play, I can claim people who wanted all free shit are all communists and we all know what happens to communists or whatever.

If you read that link, especially the section on W3, it shows you're wrong. Also see IETF (ie internet) and ITU. So either you posted that hoping nobody would click on it, or you don't read so well.

Really? How does it show he's wrong? Exact quote, please!

If I remember correctly, it's pretty explicitly stated in the top section, and you can click the link to the relevant sections yourself. Sorry I can't really bother for someone who's either really lazy or borderline literate (I don't really care).

I read the parts that referred to the W3C. I couldn't see anything like that. And in fact, their policy is that open standards need to be royalty-free. So why would they suddenly change their minds?

Please, exact quote. Or apologize and retract.

I don't remember the wiki page saying anything about no royalties in w3c, and frankly I can't really bother and I'm not sure why this manners so much to you esp. since HTML5 <video> was going for h.264.

h.264 specifically already works. It was apparently working so well Google used it for all of youtube and their own browser before dropping it to go on some disingenuous moral crusade.

OK if this is your retort to licensed hypermedia systems, I believe they already worked before the web and were indeed more widely used when TimBL wrote his spec...

If you're going to concede for h264, since you know it's what we're talking about, then just do it. Nobody gives a shit about some unrelated existential argument about every other spec that might ever exist.

BTW, you're still not thinking any better despite the increased effort. At some point, it's probably better to just give up making ridiculously stretched arguments.

So relating a media on the web like still images, video or sound to the primary media hypertext is an existential argument?

Your claims are essentially argument by innuendo, which is Glenn Beck stupid. If I wanted to play, I can claim people who wanted all free shit are all communists and we all know what happens to communists or whatever.

If you need to use ad hominem (to the man) attacks you really are finished.I suggest you either address the point or stop posting..

Very interesting the way this plugin for differing codecs is playing out, between the browser makers.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/15 ... nd_safari/-I guess at least any plugin for a royalty free codec, will not cost the developer anything to distribute or publishers anything to create, encode and sell content in. At the end of the day we may all be able to view all content (except on gnu/linux perhaps) but not gain the rich functionality that a free open codec could offer for interacting with other free and open standards, unless a native free and open format is used.

h.264 specifically already works. It was apparently working so well Google used it for all of youtube and their own browser before dropping it to go on some disingenuous moral crusade.

H.264 already works, as you say if inside Flash or under the native browsers of proprietary, licensed OS. The Web, ya know, is bigger than that. H.264 as <video> will never work in Firefox. It may work in Firefox in Windows7 (I still have to see these magical "half-plugins" that Google and MS are proposing, that supposedly do not have NPAPI limitations). It will not work in Firefox anywhere else. Never.

No. H264 is not an open standard. Open standards are royalty-free by definition. Look up the W3C Patent Policy. Remember, this is about the web.

superchkn wrote:

The fact is that it can be defined either way: 1) In the scope of the W3C document and open source projects it means free to license and distribute, this would be the one to apply.2) ITU and IETF refer to H.264 as an open standard. I believe they refer to it that way because more than one company has input.

This is about the web. An open standard, especially on the web, needs to be royalty-free.

Also, read this. As you can see, open standards are defined as being royalty-free. Even Microsoft agrees.

Well, I supplied the proof that "open standards" in used two different ways. If you want to use the definition give by the W3C, then you must specify it. Telling me that I can't refer to it as an open standard outside the context of W3C (and I'll admit, most other organizations) is futile. I can, and I can back it up with links showing precedent, as I have already.

It's absolutely pointless to be arguing about this without putting it in context. If someone doesn't specify a context, then you are certainly free to add a qualifier, such as "but within the context of web standards, H.264 is not an open standard." That would be great. But to dictate to someone that they can't use the term "open standard" to describe H.264 in any context is just ignorant. You and I may not like it that Apple, the ITU-T, and IETF use "open standard" to describe standards like H.264, but it is still true.

And before you say that this discussion takes place in the context of the web, it doesn't matter. There is no reason that the alternate definition of "open standard" can't be used in that context by Apple et al. The web does not mean in the context of W3C. If that was so then license-encumbered content could not exist on the web, and it very clearly does.

What benefit does it serve to argue about what "open standard" means? There is none. There is no benefit. There is nothing to be gained but to force your preferred definition on someone else.

Now if you want to use it within the context of a reasoned argument, as to say "Within the scope of W3C standards, only an open standard would be permissible to be specified as part of the standard. Within this context, H.264 is not an open standard."

Nobody can argue that, it is easily provable. But again, that's not what you're saying. Instead you are attempting to dictate what context the discussion on this forum can take place under, and you are powerless to control that. It's futile, it's pointless, and it's destructive. It contributes nothing to the discussion. The term "open standard" has been used both ways by different industry groups. Trying to change that now is like Sony trying to purge their PS3 keys from the Internet: a complete and utter waste of time.

And before you say that this discussion takes place in the context of the web, it doesn't matter. There is no reason that the alternate definition of "open standard" can't be used in that context by Apple et al. The web does not mean in the context of W3C. If that was so then license-encumbered content could not exist on the web, and it very clearly does.

I'm not sure you can really support that position, the W3C have always made clear their standards are recommendations, they have never mandated only support of open standards within browsers. It is however entirely disingenuous, when responding to this article regarding the open web, to suggest that the official body coordinating that open web (since its inception) is not authoritative on the matter!

And before you say that this discussion takes place in the context of the web, it doesn't matter. There is no reason that the alternate definition of "open standard" can't be used in that context by Apple et al. The web does not mean in the context of W3C. If that was so then license-encumbered content could not exist on the web, and it very clearly does.

I'm not sure you can really support that position, the W3C have always made clear their standards are recommendations, they have never mandated only support of open standards within browsers. It is however entirely disingenuous, when responding to this article regarding the open web, to suggest that the official body coordinating that open web (since its inception) is not authoritative on the matter!

I believe you have confused W3C standards with the web. The two are not the same. The W3C is not authoritative on what can be used on the web as you concede with the bit about not requiring that only open standards, as defined by W3C, be supported in browsers. Or maybe I didn't follow your argument, that's certainly possible.

As far as the article, I don't see where or how it can be referring to the open web without being disingenuous itself. If indeed it is disingenuous (and I think that argument would be believable), that would make it hard to be disingenuous when responding. I believe the only openness being discussed by Bright is that by pulling H.264 support it is taking options away from people. That's a disingenuous argument right there because it takes the whole discussion out of the context it occurred under, which is the context of HTML5 and open standards, again as defined by W3C.

And before you say that this discussion takes place in the context of the web, it doesn't matter. There is no reason that the alternate definition of "open standard" can't be used in that context by Apple et al. The web does not mean in the context of W3C. If that was so then license-encumbered content could not exist on the web, and it very clearly does.

I'm not sure you can really support that position, the W3C have always made clear their standards are recommendations, they have never mandated only support of open standards within browsers. It is however entirely disingenuous, when responding to this article regarding the open web, to suggest that the official body coordinating that open web (since its inception) is not authoritative on the matter!

I believe you have confused W3C standards with the web. The two are not the same. The W3C is not authoritative on what can be used on the web as you concede with the bit about not requiring that only open standards, as defined by W3C, be supported in browsers. Or maybe I didn't follow your argument, that's certainly possible.

As far as the article, I don't see where or how it can be referring to the open web without being disingenuous itself. If indeed it is disingenuous (and I think that argument would be believable), that would make it hard to be disingenuous when responding. I believe the only openness being discussed by Bright is that by pulling H.264 support it is taking options away from people. That's a disingenuous argument right there because it takes the whole discussion out of the context it occurred under, which is the context of HTML5 and open standards, again as defined by W3C.

I'm not sure technically we disagree.Article = disingenuous cack CHECKW3C do not control what happens to extend or around the royalty free standards it produces = CHECK-The only thing I'm not sure about is what I posted that makes you think I'm saying the WWW is the same as the WWW consortium coordinating body.

And before you say that this discussion takes place in the context of the web, it doesn't matter. There is no reason that the alternate definition of "open standard" can't be used in that context by Apple et al. The web does not mean in the context of W3C. If that was so then license-encumbered content could not exist on the web, and it very clearly does.

I'm not sure you can really support that position, the W3C have always made clear their standards are recommendations, they have never mandated only support of open standards within browsers. It is however entirely disingenuous, when responding to this article regarding the open web, to suggest that the official body coordinating that open web (since its inception) is not authoritative on the matter!

I believe you have confused W3C standards with the web. The two are not the same. The W3C is not authoritative on what can be used on the web as you concede with the bit about not requiring that only open standards, as defined by W3C, be supported in browsers. Or maybe I didn't follow your argument, that's certainly possible.

As far as the article, I don't see where or how it can be referring to the open web without being disingenuous itself. If indeed it is disingenuous (and I think that argument would be believable), that would make it hard to be disingenuous when responding. I believe the only openness being discussed by Bright is that by pulling H.264 support it is taking options away from people. That's a disingenuous argument right there because it takes the whole discussion out of the context it occurred under, which is the context of HTML5 and open standards, again as defined by W3C.

I'm not sure technically we disagree.Article = disingenuous cack CHECKW3C do not control what happens to extend or around the royalty free standards it produces = CHECK-The only thing I'm not sure about is what I posted that makes you think I'm saying the WWW is the same as the WWW consortium coordinating body.

It was obviously me just misunderstanding the question. I re-read it and I understand what you're getting at. I think we agree. I was more stating that from the devil's advocate point of view saying that I can see where that point could be made. Do I think it is disingenuous and argumentative to take that stance when it should be pretty clear what people are getting at when describing standards in the context of W3C (which has pretty much been every post in support of Google?) Certainly. Even being disingenuous about it, I can still just barely make it work in my mind.

That extension will never enjoy the wide support that Flash does because website owners will not be willing to pay to develop a website that requires users to download a browser extension. Flash earned that position by providing things websites couldn't offer otherwise. Meanwhile, if I told a prospective client that (a) 25% of our users will be prompted to download a browser extension to watch videos, or (b) 100% of our users can watch videos immediately, it would be a no-brainer. The <video> element, in its current state, does not offer me anything other than in-page videos for iPad users.

It can just be installed by default anyway.

Installed by default by whom? Who exactly is going to install an MS plugin by default in Firefox? Mozilla? Yeah, right!

Quote:

Quote:

tzt wrote:

I wrote about this in a reply to bedward a few pages back, basically about what's google's angle/play in this.

In general corps don't like anything that's outside their control. MS also tried their splinter codec a while back (also tried to make it "free"), and even they gave up on it to go with one spec for the benefit of everyone. But now google wants to give it their shot, years later but with a shining image that bedazzles some.

I don't care about Google's image. Google's image, good or bad, doesn't affect me in the least. We're talking about web browser support for h.264 encoding in HTML5's <video> element. Chrome supporting it or not has no effect on whether it would be widely adopted, because only iPads benefited from it in the first place. Yes, only iPads (as opposed to other iOS devices). I realize you have some theory about Google's master plan but you don't explain it very well. If you're going to accuse a corporation of being an evil entity with a scheme, at least say what that scheme is.

What? HTML5/H.264 was never going to work on Firefox, anyway. Yes, there would have been a plugin, but would the plugin provide the HTML5 features that the <video> tag requires (such as being able to interact with the video from js?). I doubt it, MS said it would play in Windows Media Player. That doesn't sound like the same thing.

Anyway, hows does 10% of the browser market not supporting something render it impotent? Especially when you consider that Fx and Opera, which are a much bigger market share (collectively), don't support it either....

If people are happy to "support" <video> in Fx through an MS plugin, then why can't MS make one for Chrome as well?

Who cares? H.264 is supported in Flash. We're just going to use that, instead. It's a good thing. Flash is supported on far more platforms and browsers than HTML 5 video. The only reason Apple is pushing HTML 5 is because Flash cuts into their profits from video sales within iTunes. Flash games would cut into their profits from app sales.

It's not just codecs that are being implemented differently across browsers. Different browsers are adopting proprietary implementations of the upcoming set of CSS 3 standards, as well. It's just like the late 1990s again, when web developers were forced to heavily customize their site's code to suit different browsers. That's why Flash became popular in the first place. It offers a way to display your content identically in different browsers and operating systems. It is the future.

Well, after reading 20 pages pf comments, the best thing would probably be for mpegla to smart up and just make h264 completely free for decoding... They can make plenty of money from those big studios as content creators...